Open Document – the Divorce Arguments

Here is the blogging equivalent of linux. In order to contribute to the multilayered discussion (even if we think that there is nothing really to discuss at a principle level) we are providing a beta version chart of the arguments that will have to be dealt with and choices that have to be made in the Divorce Debate. Please note that this is a chart – some of the beliefs mentioned in the chart are our own, not all. Although we may seem schizophrenic at times and possessed of a multiple-personality we cannot possibly be held liable for all of them at once. Feel free to suggest changes.

The Arguments

1. Constitutional (the works)

• Majority Rule: (the belief that) introducing divorce requires some form of approval that is based on the will of the majority of the country.
  • should this be an electoral mandate (party manifesto)?
    • Time-barred (at least 2013), PLPN barrier (see Bondi – No Mandate, No Party and Bencini – Divorce, the referendum and Maltese democracy)
  • should this be a consultative mandate (consultative referendum)?
    • Non-binding, PLPN barrier (see Caruana Galizia – When a referendum is undemocratic)
  • should this be a propositive mandate (divorce by public referendum)?
    • Requires constitutional change, PLPN barrier
  • can it be subjected to confirmation (abrogative referendum)?
    • already exists, no PLPN barrier
• Minority Right: (the belief that) introducing divorce is not a matter of majority decision. Divorce should be an accessible right to the persons who want to avail themselves of this right – the majority cannot impose its will on the minority.
  • should this be by an electoral mandate (party manifesto)?
    • Time-barred (at least 2013), PLPN barrier (none of the two seems prone to include a commitment to introduce divorce as a government bill), Private Members’ Bill would not work
  • should there be a consultative/propositive measure anyway?
    • no longer useful once you accept it is right for the minority you accept the argument that the majority/minority will need not be quantified
  • can it be subjected to confirmation (abrogative referendum)?
    • it already exists, no PLPN barrier
  • Is Private Members’ Bill feasible?
    • outside the issue of mandate but raises question of duty for other parliamentarians, still forces debate
  • a majority vote of current members of Parliament should suffice
    • MPs are representatives (not delegates) and are voted to represent (The country’s constitution does not recognise political parties. How much less, then, does it recognise the electoral programmes of those political parties. Party electoral programmes have no force of law. A political party need not have a manifesto at all. – (from the Runs)) see Spiteri – Wrong Reactions after divorce shell-shock

The Values (Morality, Religion and Tradition)

• Divorce as a personal issue
  • the right to remarry/second chance argument (see Cassar – When the trust is gone)
  • the right to reset civil status and ancillary rights beyond patchwork measures (cohabitation)
  • the right to determine one’s own lifestyle choices
  • divorce as closure (Some people are interested in divorce because they do not want to be party to something that’s no more than a legal fiction).
• Divorce as a social curse
  • the damaging effects of divorce (and consequences)
  • the potential increase in divorce (vs separation statistics)
  • the devaluation of the married unit
• Divorce as religious anathema
  • Catholic church frowns on divorce (see Roamer under Hey! There’s Jeffrey again! )
  • Catholic politicians or long arm of the church? (see Spiteri – Wrong reactions…, and Serracino Inglott – Can a Catholic politician vote for divorce?)
  • Lay values vs Catholic nation (see Borg Cardona – Cats, Pigeons and Moral Authority)
• Myths
  • Expensive myth
  • Divorce can already be obtained abroad
  • The only country without divorce bar the Philippines (see inter alia Hansen – Lone Ranger’s Motion might end in tears)